Whether the retroactive application of California Penal Code Section 667(c)(2) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED OOF BY, V) PUPELLIVET OL PERSES ERE COMMIUTIEO 1K 2. m 4, [hd 2006 PENAL. Cope C62. CO) CUBS PUPED OED IK WKXREPSEOD QECUNMIYRENT pupil & CAD itn TLE WIOLATAGE SEF xem OADER TRS RIE LE) UAVHESIE? BOO, LIED GP Woden LLL Stews OO MS CHEE AYE Srv7ER Ge : fo" (oe a" Comer nye, EX LOT 49H CLMSE DF AYE (OMIEL) STPIES “4 eRe, a POR CLC CMIYNVED SLAF WO tazoay SEC Oy C Wien cn DO) Sho fC 220 FO 2eoy my P CABS Tyr Lae. BEX tye SSAICKL brio WCKRERLED THE fy, A) Dy a Fie 0 ee PROSECUTOR OY Tyg SWE OF CALIFORNIA pydg) THE STAIE OFFIC OLS Cotsen -, OAKLAND, MAIWNED A Coury 7¥ CVV LKAMO DEALT THE SLIT E CMe HE OL EINE OLE LHE STE OFFICIEL gay p75 OV SCE Se CO Tg LEN IS WT THE CHPRE INE OPO OAC INO PROSE Cura tt CVE oe FROLSUGLE CLUS, THAT 89/0) OLPERONST tO OLA TE hn O08 SECtIWY 667.CD), DUE FO 4 WOLAIION OF FC AL CA) a) Wii WAS MOT THE C4 IAF EXISTED OM IE OIE OL PAE OFLLEERNS (6 5 COW craw OF Eo 9 CCA), BECAUSE THE LBW PHAT ERSTE by DHE BATE Oe CHE VPENS EG, 1g PERO AOMO MIVE F018 E CHUUELO AUT VOLATILE PEL Coys SECCH op, 220 %O Quge, VOY NOE PLIE JWEM LAIST A OMMER Cer); Ma Ti. Lora CHURE EL NOE HE ELI CL) AS PUTIEATEO Hh Cb ECA) Brmogr FO VESUES BEMORE pz ELVECIIVE Dp Ie OF WOVETIBER G, R006 FOR enicy gb A VCRE ALE TE PUMSYELT Loge PHE OFESE @ ‘ 4) COS WV) OP Eta RUA pep COME AE DORVEY PA EPL EONE CUHEN BOIL PUL ED 7o RE CO6WH2E FAE EX POST (DCF 0 WOLMIVODS CUMERS 19 UES OIOLE CLUVE ER WOULD LIVELIEA Fe CLE SEATZEALOINE SCM LIMES THOT LPS IMS CLF ECT OPI THE OBIE af THE COMMU ITED OFFENSES F0 PROTEST THE OLPEMOBAT tYy WY OLpg WUSIEES PHOT COULD SERIOUSLY WOLPIE LUIS COWS TIFUFIY HL RISEN IT 2